It’s right to be a reluctant warrior regarding Iraq

Of course, world leaders should try to let diplomacy work before its failure forces them into conflict.

Journal Star

Of course, world leaders should try to let diplomacy work before its failure forces them into conflict.

Of course, war should always be a last resort.

Of course, sovereign nations have a right to make their own decisions regarding their national security interests.

Of course, that will sometimes put even allies at odds.

Ideally the United States and Israel -- and other nations, for that matter -- would be on the same page regarding Iran and its nuclear ambitions. Following Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's visit to the White House, it's apparent he and President Barack Obama are not quite there yet, if they ever will be.

Clearly a pre-emptive strike on Iranian nuclear facilities is very much on Israel's mind. The potential menace is much more ominous for Israel than for the U.S., being as it's in the same neighborhood as an Iran that has long voiced a desire for Israel's annihilation. There is precedent, with Israel's air attack on an Iraqi reactor in 1981 and a Syrian facility in 2007 drawing public condemnation at the time (and, in retrospect, perhaps some private pats on the back since). That doesn't mean the third time would also be so charmed.

And clearly an Obama who has had to deal with the ramifications in blood and treasure of an America at war for most of the 21st century would prefer to exhaust every other option first, as he should. That would include sanctions that, especially with the European Union on board appear to be having an effect. Iran has agreed to return to face-to-face negotiations that broke down in Istanbul last year, with no preconditions, its nuclear program -- which Iran's leaders insist is only for peaceful, power-generation purposes -- on the table. It also has opened the door, if just a crack, to allowing outside inspectors to view some of its facilities. Are they merely stalling for more time to develop a bomb? Perhaps. Certainly we've been played before. That said, the recognized master at that, North Korea, recently indicated it would suspend weapons tests and uranium enrichment in exchange for food from the West. Are they bluffing? Again, maybe. But no one should say economic pressure is meaningless or not worth pursuing short of war.

Beyond that, no decisions should be made on an emotional basis. There are pragmatic considerations, among them being the consensus among many experts that military strikes would cool but not kill Iran's nuclear program, while potentially setting off a regrettable chain reaction among other nations in the region, unleashing even wider conflict.

The best outcome here remains convincing Iran that backing off is in its best interests, and we should pursue that until we can't anymore.

Never miss a story

Choose the plan that's right for you.
Digital access or digital and print delivery.